Deism for non-believers

[Skepsis]

Oh, I think the simple answer is that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've glanced at some stuff, but I'm very ignorant of the subject. I will say, however, even though I'm grossly ignorant of the subject, from what I've read, I think you're being overly charitable toward Quine.

Anyway, for some irrational reason I like Quine. However, my bailiwick is cognitive science, psychology, theory of discourses and epistemology. And I'm pretty ignorant even on those subjects. So this is just a novice spitballing, not an educated opinion.

Take anything I have said or will say with a grain of salt, because even in your professed ignorance you likely have much more background than I in anything rooted in philosophy.

I have trouble getting through the first chapter of Being and Nothingness, so I am not in any way a source for philsophical musings. Hell, I'm not even 18. I haven't taken a course in philosophy in my life, and only freshman level college courses. Everything I know comes from my own study and my debate courses.

That said, if I was charitable towards Quine a you suggest, it was only because my only background in Quine is what you had written in your post. I have read a bit of Mr.Immanuel and his observations on sense-perception, but even there I am spotty. Takes a bit of passion, a pinch of patience, and quite a fair share of brains to understand what some philosophers are trying to say, especially those that scorn the layman.

I do, however, have an expansive and ever-growing vocabulary, which is why I have to salute you for making me look up "bailiwick". Wow.

[FallentoReason]

Have you witnessed any cosmos creation recently? Why have you ruled out intervention but ruled in creation, they would seem to fall under the same axe, to me.

Actually yes, I have. Before creation there was nothing, after there was something, we proposes this as an act of a god, therefore it intervened in the continued state of nothingness.

Ok, there you go. You've implicitly identified that creation was an act of intervention in the immaterial realm. So for me that doesn't count as intervening in the real world.

Aren't we arguing about a scale which is completely disconnected in every way to reality? I do recall you mentioning a few posts back that this was precisely the trouble with the scale as it applied to compelling someone to believe in a plausible god.

No, we're talking a scale that rules out gods that contradict reality. I mentioned in the OP that we were left with no other choice but to believe in a non-contradictory god. But we've already been through that. Or did you mean I said something else?

No assumption is required, you can see the totality of both lines, and they do not intersect. I don't need to check into infinity because they are not infinitely long. A line of known length, and an infinitely long line are vastly different things (yuk yuk yuk). Parallel lines need not be infinitely long even if there were (at least in concept) infinitely long parallel lines.

\
/

Parallel lines. Tell me what they are so that I can understand why mine aren't parallel. I can see the totality of both lines and they're not intersecting, so I take it they're parallel to you as well.

Sorry to come in late. The deist creator god is the least implausible of all the proposed creator gods I have heard of, but it is still implausible

Beeecaaause...?

See, there is your whole problem here in a nutshell. Like any "good" theist (or "deist" or whatever for the arrogantly pedantic), you approach the problem thus:

A) X must be true, by fiat.

B) What specious arguments, assertions, and other horseshit can I try to float to support A?

C) Post B ad nauseum.

Then stop me at step B and show me why I'm wrong.

In the same way as we can know the orbit pf Pluto without ever observing the path or the angles at which it spins, we can know if two lines would be truly parallel. Use math to determine whether the set that you have in reality matches the hypothetical ideal- then you can know whether or not the physical interpretation of "parallel" matches.

Ah, but I would like to remind you that:

[concepts] cannot be shown directly in reality, just like every single other concept that has ever existed.

All you will ever get in reality is an approximation to the concept. It's actually rather trivial to use all the power you posses to try and get the most perfect parallel lines drawn when you could equally just dash the paper twice and tell me both pairs are parallel lines. The outcome will be the same... I will be "seeing" parallel lines because the concept exists in my head and I'm relating your representations to that concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

The concept is descriptive..ffs. "Parallel" is the name given to the thing you are looking at (case in point, without adding a subject -defining a set- parallel means absolutely nothing, it's just a descriptor with nothing to describe). It has a list of requirements attached to the concept so that you might be able to distinguish (and communicate) what you are seeing from some other established or agreed upon concept (which likely also has a name and is also, in all likelihood, descriptive).

[Colanth]

I can't see the material as 'icing on the cake' because it is through the material that we've defined 'intervention'. Early on in this thread some of us have agreed that a plausible god wouldn't intervene in the world today. That implies that intervention is the mucking-around of material things. Therefore, when nothing exists it's impossible to intervene because there's nothing to intervene with. After creation intervention is possible

Oops. Creation is also intervention, so creation when there's nothing is impossible. Your logic, not mine. (And it's not creation if anything already exists.)

Of course, "creation" doesn't need a creator - that's just one more gap that no god lives in. And it's the crucial one - if no creator is needed, no god is either, of any kind. That's the last gap and it's welded shut. No more god-o-the-gaps. Now we have to await objective evidence that a god objectively exists. And the universe has only a few (okay, a whole lot) billion years left, so I don't think anyone will ever see any.

[FallentoReason]

Oops. Creation is also intervention, so creation when there's nothing is impossible. Your logic, not mine. (And it's not creation if anything already exists.)

Where did you get that from? I never said creation is intervention. I've said the opposite this whole time.

Of course, "creation" doesn't need a creator - that's just one more gap that no god lives in. And it's the crucial one - if no creator is needed, no god is either, of any kind. That's the last gap and it's welded shut. No more god-o-the-gaps. Now we have to await objective evidence that a god objectively exists. And the universe has only a few (okay, a whole lot) billion years left, so I don't think anyone will ever see any.

You have evidence to prove that?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I knew -- and I said -- all along that your story of "deconversion" was a sham

---

Ok, there you go. You've implicitly identified that creation was an act of intervention in the immaterial realm. So for me that doesn't count as intervening in the real world.

Fallacy Bullshit Special Pleading aka Moving the goalposts aka being a disingenuous fucktard.

See, there is your whole problem here in a nutshell. Like any "good" theist (or "deist" or whatever for the arrogantly pedantic), you approach the problem thus:

A) X must be true, by fiat.

B) What specious arguments, assertions, and other horseshit can I try to float to support A?

C) Post B ad nauseum.

Then stop me at step B and show me why I'm wrong.

I dropped you in your tracks at (A). No need to go any further.

---

Oops. Creation is also intervention, so creation when there's nothing is impossible. Your logic, not mine. (And it's not creation if anything already exists.)

Where did you get that from? I never said creation is intervention. I've said the opposite this whole time.

Special Pleading/moving the goalposts/ disingenuous/fucktard.

Repeating the same lie over and over as nauseum doesn't make it true.

Of course, "creation" doesn't need a creator - that's just one more gap that no god lives in. uAnd it's the crucial one - if no creator is needed, no god is either, of
bqbq any kind. That's the last gap and it's welded shut. No more god-o-the-gaps. Now we have to await objective evidence that a god objectively exists. And the universe has only a few (okay, a whole lot) billion years left, so I don't think anyone will ever see any.

You have evidence to prove that?

It hasn't happened yet in the first whole lotta billion years, no reason to assume it will in the last.

[FallentoReason]

I knew -- and I said -- all along that your story of "deconversion" was a sham

I guess you're allowed to believe whatever you want. Good for you.

Fallacy Bullshit Special Pleading aka Moving the goalposts aka being a disingenuous fucktard.

If you bothered to read the thread you would have realised we weren't coming to an agreement of what we meant by intervention.

Special Pleading/moving the goalposts/ disingenuous/fucktard.

Repeating the same lie over and over as nauseum doesn't make it true.

Labeling every bit of my post with different fallacies is fine, but then you never seem to then make the connection between label and the content. Give an explanation please of where I'm wrong.

You explicitly said I'm 'lying'. That implies you know the truth about creation?? Please, enlighten me.

It hasn't happened yet in the first whole lotta billion years, no reason to assume it will in the last.

I hope you realise the human race as it is today hasn't existed for the 'first whole lotta billion years'.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I knew -- and I said -- all along that your story of "deconversion" was a sham

I guess you're allowed to believe whatever you want. Good for you.

You prove it with every post you make here.

Fallacy Bullshit Special Pleading aka Moving the goalposts aka being a disingenuous fucktard.

If you bothered to read the thread you would have realised we weren't coming to an agreement of what we meant by intervention.

Yes, I read it and that's what I meant. You are special pleading a god-figure that could create the universe "but not through intervention" Colanth is calling you on it and you are repeating your bullshit special pleading ad nauseum.

Special Pleading/moving the goalposts/ disingenuous/fucktard.

Repeating the same lie over and over as nauseum doesn't make it true.

Labeling every bit of my post with different fallacies is fine, but then you never seem to then make the connection between label and the content. Give an explanation please of where I'm wrong.

It is just that you REFUSE TO SEE what is in front of you. Your claim of creation ""without intervention" is a special pleading. That was quite clear from the way I quoted it. Your playing dumb isn'tfooling anyone.

You explicitly said I'm 'lying'. That implies you know the truth about creation?? Please, enlighten me.

Your lie (this time) is your claim of "creation without intervention". What I know about "creation" is that it's bullshit made up by pathological liars in a failed attempt to conform their superstitious fairy tales to what we now know of science. It's not that fucking hard to figure out.

It hasn't happened yet in the first whole lotta billion years, no reason to assume it will in the last.

I hope you realise the human race as it is today hasn't existed for the 'first whole lotta billion years'.

REALLY? Hurr durr

That's not what I was talking about and you know it[/quote], dolt.

[FallentoReason]

Yes, I read it and that's what I meant. You are special pleading a god-figure that could create the universe "but not through intervention" Colanth is calling you on it and you are repeating your bullshit special pleading ad nauseum.

Oops. Creation is also intervention, so creation when there's nothing is impossible. Your logic, not mine. (And it's not creation if anything already exists.)

Colanth assumes creation is intervention without any explanation. If you haven't realised, around half the thread has been about establishing this point. Therefore, Colanth isn't calling me on anything because he hasn't added anything new to the discussion with this already-made assertion.

It is just that you REFUSE TO SEE what is in front of you. Your claim of creation ""without intervention" is a special pleading. That was quite clear from the way I quoted it. Your playing dumb isn'tfooling anyone.

Thank you for cooperating. How is creation without intervention special pleading? Guide me through your thought process of why creation is intervention.

Your lie (this time) is your claim of "creation without intervention". What I know about "creation" is that it's bullshit made up by pathological liars in a failed attempt to conform their superstitious fairy tales to what we now know of science. It's not that fucking hard to figure out.

We're talking Deist gods, so you're way off the mark.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Yes, I read it and that's what I meant. You are special pleading a god-figure that could create the universe "but not through intervention" Colanth is calling you on it and you are repeating your bullshit special pleading ad nauseum.

Oops. Creation is also intervention, so creation when there's nothing is impossible. Your logic, not mine. (And it's not creation if anything already exists.)

Colanth assumes creation is intervention without any explanation.

I do not think that is the case.

If you haven't realised, around half the thread has been about establishing this point.

The entire thread has been about you making shit up as you go along to try and push a god-of-the-gaps argument. And we all know about arguments not being evidence, and god-of-the-gaps arguments being bullshit.

Therefore, Colanth isn't calling me on anything because he hasn't added anything new to the discussion with this already-made assertion.

Calling you on your making bullshit up as you go is indeed nothing new.

It is just that you REFUSE TO SEE what is in front of you. Your claim of creation ""without intervention" is a special pleading. That was quite clear from the way I quoted it. Your playing dumb isn't fooling anyone.

Thank you for cooperating. How is creation without intervention special pleading? Guide me through your thought process of why creation is intervention.

"Creation" would require a "creator" (which you have not and cannot establish the existence of) to INTERVENE with the status quo.

Your lie (this time) is your claim of "creation without intervention". What I know about "creation" is that it's bullshit made up by pathological liars in a failed attempt to conform their superstitious fairy tales to what we now know of science. It's not that fucking hard to figure out.

We're talking Deist gods, so you're way off the mark.

The idea of "deist gods" is another bullshit special pleading. It's simply wading in evasive vagueness in a failed attempt to avoid yoru burden of proof for ANY assertion of (a) god(s).